Russian strategist Vasily Kashin Globalist elites liquidated in Russia
Published
08.11.2025 15:22Author
Published
08.11.2025 15:22AuthorVasily Kashin is the Director of the Centre for Comprehensive European and International Studies of the Moscow Higher School of Economics (HSE), one of the prestigious universities in Russia. Born in Moscow in 1973, Kashin has previously worked in leading think tanks such as the Valday Discussion Club and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He is both an academic who knows the West very well and is considered one of the leading Chinese experts of Russia. One last point to correctly assess the weight of his words: Kashin is one of the names involved in the meetings of the delegations called "track two" diplomacy that was recently conducted with the Americans.
Stating that there is an irreversible break in Russia's relations with the West, Kashin states that the relationship model before 2014 has completely ended. Kashin, who defines this old order as a "neo-colonial" structure in which Russia invests the income it earns in the European economy by providing cheap resources, in return, does not receive a political say and is discriminated against in areas such as access to technology, Kashin emphasizes that this system is no longer possible.
Kashin argues that the most important outcome of the war in Ukraine is the liquidation of the “globalist and pro-European” elites within Russia, rather than territorial gains, and thus the country is freed from the dependency relationship. While Kashin states that Russia has no hope for the future of its relations with the European Union and that these relations should not improve, he opens a conditional door for dialogue with the USA.
Accepting Foreign Media at the university where he works in Moscow, Vasily Kashin answered the questions of Tunç Akkoç and Mehmet Kıvanç:
Let's start with the relations with the West in general. Do you see the West as a single bloc, or do you consider the US different from Europe? How do you see the future of relations between the West and Russia? Is it possible to return these relations to their original state in the future?
First of all, let me say this: After the extremely profound domestic political change in the USA, it is no longer possible to see the West as a single whole. At the same time, many processes are taking place within the European Union. Because many of the big European countries are currently struggling with serious domestic political crises. Especially in France, cabinets change frequently, the president is not very popular and there are similar problems. The same situation applies in Germany. In other words, they are all experiencing simultaneous internal political crises and the results differ from country to country.
I think there will definitely be no return to the relations we had with Western countries in the period before 2022 or even before Crimea in 2014. The relationship model of that period was based on a certain political and economic model after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. This model was seen by the vast majority of the people as an extremely negative and legitimate structure in terms of the development of the country. In that political economic model, Russia was the exporter of the main energy resources and other natural resources. Constantly giving huge foreign trade and current excess, investing these huge revenues - tens of billions of dollars every year - in particular in the European Union economy. In other words, we provide them with cheap resources, invest most of our earnings in their economy, we could not get anything in return. We had no say in European politics. Moreover, we were facing heavy discrimination. We were seriously discriminated against access to technology, markets and investment.
If we compare Russia in the 2000s with China, China was still a communist country with strong protectionism at the time, but it had almost no obstacles in buying European assets. For example, they could easily buy high-tech companies. Even today, they control big automakers like Volvo and Saab. When Russia tried to do something similar, for example, in the 2000s, when it wanted to buy the German automaker Opel, this initiative was completely blocked for political reasons. However, Russia's goal was to increase access to technology and develop the automotive sector in the country. There were many other examples like this.
"Globalist and pro-European elites have been liquidated in Russia"
So this relationship was a bad deal for Russia from start to finish. And on the basis of this was the influence of a very destructive and corrupt section of the Russian elite who advocated such relations with Europe. In general, the main result of the war in Ukraine, which started in 2014 and escalated in 2022, is the liquidation of the more globalist and pro-European segment of the Russian political and business elite. Especially the war in 2022 led to a large-scale redistribution of power and wealth in Russia. Hundreds of billions of dollars worth of assets belonging to this globalist segment in the Russian business world or European companies were either confiscated or the owners were forced to sell them at very low prices. Now they are in other hands. No one wants to go back to the semi-colonialist old model of Russia-Europe relations. Frankly, we do not need to restore relations with Europe.
You have stated that some Russian elites have managed or carried out relations in the past years. Are these people still in important positions in Russia?
They're not anymore. Basically, if you watch the news here, you see the decline of a person every month, who has played an important role in the life of certain regions of Russia for years and has controlled considerable assets. The typical example is this: Consider someone who manages assets in Russia, but lives permanently in Europe and evaluates the profits he makes there in Europe. We don't need such people here anymore. They often have completely legal reasons to deprive them of their presence in Russia and to file a lawsuit against them, possibly for some crimes they committed years ago; thus, they are kept away from our country. The liquidation of these people is actually the main result of the current conflict; much more important than developments such as possible territorial changes in Ukraine.
As for US-Russia relations... I think there was a general hope after the meeting in Alaska, but nothing concrete has happened so far. At the moment, discussions seem to be focusing on sanctions and other issues. How do you predict the future of relations between the US and Russia?
I think there is still hope for Russia-US relations. There is absolutely no hope for Russia-Europe relations. It will remain bad and should never recover in the foreseeable future. Although there is hope in terms of Russia-US relations, we need to understand American logic. They have a few goals. First of all, they need to maintain their control over Europe in order to continue the fight for global supremacy. They need to skillfully conduct politics among the European elites. They need to strengthen the reputation of Donald Trump in the US. There is also an issue specific to the way Donald Trump makes a deal: He constantly puts pressure on everyone he negotiates with. It aims to psychologically shake the other party by frequently changing the conditions and approach.
"The war will continue unless some conditions that Russia wants are met"
The Americans are clearly interested in ending the war in Ukraine and partially stabilizing relations with Russia. There are several reasons for this. One of them is that Ukraine consumes a lot of resources. Monetarily, Europeans bear most of the burden. But there are other elements of the equation: the production capacity of the American defense industry is very limited, and so are the military resources of the USA. They are also entering a deepening arms race with China and they are losing this race right now because today it is the number one industrial superpower in the world that has clearly surpassed China, the US and Japan together, possibly surpassing the US, Japan and Germany. This means that they should focus their attention on the Pacific. They are also interested in weakening the political ties between Russia and China. He knows that Russia will never oppose China, but they want to reduce the intensity of security cooperation between the two countries.
And of course, there is another aspect of the job. Ukraine is actually losing this war. It is thought that the negotiation conditions with Russia will deteriorate as time goes by. So what he does now (Trump) is to force us into an agreement as soon as possible and will not be very good for Russia. The point it returns to now is an immediate ceasefire along the current front line; Russia will never accept this. In order to stop the war, Russia wants a number of very important military and political requirements to be fulfilled, including the neutrality of Ukraine, the introduction of some restrictions to the future Ukrainian Armed Forces, and some conditions related to Ukraine's domestic policy. For example, the existing prohibitions and restrictions on the Russian and Russian Orthodox Church should be lifted. War will continue unless these conditions are met.
“They don't want to bargain, they want to impose some conditions on us”
The biggest problem at the moment is that concrete and comprehensive negotiations do not work due to the pressure-oriented approach of the American side. To start talking about such complex topics, it is necessary to establish negotiating delegations in several “baskets” with Ukraine and the USA. If even the ceasefire is to be discussed, the front line is about 2,000 km long; this is an extremely technical issue. Military expert teams are needed to discuss high technical details, but this is not done. We need teams to discuss future security arrangements, which weapons can be deployed where; again military experts. Teams consisting of legal and politics experts to discuss political issues are also needed. None of this happens.
Currently, there are only at the highest level, very general conversations between the representatives of the presidents. They don't want to negotiate with us in detail, because they want to impose some conditions on us, not bargaining. That won't happen. They can increase sanctions; we are ready for this. They cannot destabilize us with sanctions. Everything that could work has already been tried by the Biden administration. If there is a military escalation, we are ready for any kind of escalation that can go as far as nuclear conflict. We will not take a step back. I think at some point Trump will understand this and a more realistic negotiation ground will be formed.
One of the scenarios is this, do you think this is realistic? If Trump finally says that the US will no longer support Ukraine, but the conflict continues, will Europe's engagement in Ukraine be sustainable without the US?
I think he likes to say that Trump has the option to withdraw from this conflict. He is doing this to put pressure on us. There is no such option in reality. Even if the USA does not give money to Ukraine, it is the main actor of this war. For example, the combat capacity of the Ukrainian Armed Forces is based on American satellite reconnaissance data and access to American communication satellite infrastructure. The entire command-control system is based on their access to Starlink. All targeting facilities are based on real-time satellite discovery and the activities of American teams stationed in Eastern Europe to direct these data streams to the Ukrainian military. American AWACS aircraft patrol and provide Ukrainians with real-time radar data; this is the main factor in the durability of the Ukrainian air defense system. Numerous elements of American signal intelligence deployed in Eastern Europe also provide data streams to Ukrainians; all of which are high-cost. In addition, a significant part of this capacity is needed in Asia (Trump's). As long as the war continues, it cannot shift any of this to Asia; because in that case, the war effort collapses.
“They can't finance this war in the long run”
Europeans have major financial resource problems. So now they are discussing the option of stealing frozen Russian assets. The problem is: if they confiscate Russia's sovereign assets, this will affect the behavior of all other countries that hold presence in Europe; especially Middle Eastern countries and China. Secondly, there has been a large redistribution of assets within Russia, but this process is far from completion. Europeans have accumulated assets in Russia for thirty years. The amount is too big. Of course, it's far beyond what they can get from us. We simply seize them and they lose them forever. We can also think of creative ways in areas such as intellectual property rights to increase influence on Europe. So they suffer great loss. The reputations of international investors, especially the Middle East and East Asian countries, are damaged and we will do our best to deepen this damage. That's why they still hesitate.
But even if they do, Ukraine's defense activities only need $120 billion for the next year. In addition, a large number of resources will be needed to maintain the daily operation of the Ukrainian government. We are bombarding the infrastructure and increasing the pressure to increase the cost. Almost every major European economy is in a debt crisis; France, which is facing a budget disaster, the most remarkable, is the public debt increasing rapidly every month. Italy, Spain, and even Germany are in a pretty bad situation. They will have to spend a large amount. Even if they confiscate our resources, they will not solve this problem. They can't finance this war in the long run and they know it very well. That's why they try to increase the pressure and force us to accept the ceasefire immediately.
"Trump's pressure on Turkey will not yield results"
The next question is about Turkey. Considering the relations that Ankara has developed with the West, especially with the Trump administration and the USA, as well as with the European Union, how do you foresee the Russia-Turkey relations? President Erdoğan recently visited the White House and signed an important energy deal. In this context, considering that Trump is pressuring Turkey to reduce or stop energy intake from Russia, how do you see the future of Russia-Turkey relations?
Turkey is focused on increasing its independent role in regional and global politics and strengthening its strategic autonomy. I think he understands that Turkey can gain more by maintaining its strategic autonomy than approaching any side, especially Trump, because no one knows where Trump will be in three years. He will try to put pressure on Turkey, but I don't think this will work in the long run.
Although our political relations are completely hostile, since a complete break is not possible, Turkey will be the main channel of economic relations between Europe and Russia. At the same time, Turkey will need more industrial and resource cooperation with Russia, as it will need many types of resources, not just energy, while developing its own economy. We already have cooperation in the field of nuclear energy; this cooperation can be expanded in some areas, including the defense industry.
In summary, as long as Turkey remains an independent actor who is not directed from outside and follows its own national interests, relations will generally be positive. We may have different views on some specific issues related to Middle Eastern politics or the former Soviet geography, but this does not change the general picture. The two countries need each other and I believe that both sides will make efforts to keep these differences under control.
The last question is about China. How do you evaluate the competition between the US and China? Do you expect tension to get out of control, trade war or hot conflict?
There are very clear signs that both the United States and China are expecting an escalation in the coming years. For China, this is manifested in the increasing food and energy stocks dramatically in recent years, legislative changes that allow additional mobilisation of people and resources, annual economic mobilization exercises, increasing purely military activities, strengthening energy cooperation with Russia and Central Asia to secure energy flow, and many other concrete political decisions. It should not be forgotten that China is currently becoming the third nuclear superpower in the world. They probably add hundreds of nuclear warheads every year. In terms of their nuclear capabilities, they are already more effective than France and the United Kingdom combined, and they will most likely reach the same level as the US and Russia in the early 2030s. This completely changes the logic of competition.
"Hot conflict is likely in Asia, but it is not like Ukraine"
At some point, a situation similar to the one in Europe will also emerge in Asia. Today, the US and other NATO members want to fight Russia in Ukraine, but they do not dare to do anything directly. Only Ukrainians can act with their hands; they can provide information, weapons and guidance. They are not able to fight Russia directly because they are afraid of nuclear escalation. Sooner or later, we will see a similar picture in Asia. The difference is this: Russia is smaller than the US and, of course, the European Union in terms of resources, production capacity of the defense industry and economy scale. China, on the other hand, surpasses the USA in industrial capacity. Moreover, in some of the most critical areas for today's defense, China has more resources than the rest of the world combined. For example, in 2021, China controlled 80 percent of the global production of small UAVs. Today, almost all of the UAVs used by Russia and Ukraine in the war are largely manufactured with Chinese components, including microchips, small electric motors, controllers, batteries, etc. As we know from the Ukraine war, in today's war, small assault UAVs, especially FPV drones, are responsible for 80 percent of the casualties; they are the most critical means of the war. China controls these global supply chains. This, at the beginning of the 20th century, I. Before World War II, it is similar to a single country controlling, for example, 80 percent of artillery shell production; in this case, the course of the war would be quite predictable. We are facing a similar situation today.
“China wins a regional war”
It is difficult to assess the combat capabilities of the People's Liberation Army, because they have not been involved in the war since the late 80s. However, they reached the target in terms of defense industry capacity; in this respect, they are even stronger than the USA. The chances of winning in a territorial war are very high. Especially if the US will not be able to fight directly and will be content to support an actor there. There is no capacity to compare with China in the production of certain types of weapons. So there is a big possibility of conflict; they will carefully select the time, shoot, and probably win.
What is the meaning of the alliance between Russia and China not only for Russia, but also for the world and the international community?
This is not an alliance in the West. We are not closely coordinated on all issues. Most importantly, we have no common line in Asian politics. For example, Russia has very close relations with India and Vietnam. Both India and Vietnam have border disputes with China and see China as a possible threat. Still, they supply most of their weapons from Russia; Russia is India's main partner in the defense industry and provides a large number of weapons to Vietnam. This is an example of areas where Russia acts completely independently of China.
“In some scenarios, we may fight together against China and the USA”
Russia and China have joint positions on global governance issues, because we both want the role of the US and the EU to be significantly reduced. Secondly, we together oppose the US's claims of global hegemony. These are our common goals in global politics. There is also a common border, common interests in security in neighboring regions and a strong convergence of our economies: we have natural resources, and in China the world's largest manufacturing infrastructure. These are the basic pillars of our relationships. We never act against each other. This does not mean that we will always be fully coordinated; for example, China still wants to establish good relations with the European Union. Europeans reject this under the guidance of Americans and have begun to seize Chinese presence in Europe; as in the case of Nexperia in the Netherlands. Still, China is trying to address them. Russia, on the other hand, is not looking for an engagement with the EU. So there are differences, but there is also a very close partnership, and in some scenarios we may fight together against the US.